2024-2025 Final Report Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury This ancient oak is next to Jack London’s cottage at Jack London

Conclusions 30

• CL1 Page 36
  The construction, alteration or modification of: (i) Any on-site disposal system (approval required from the well and septic section of permit and resource management department), (ii) Any water supply system which under state law or county ordinance is required to have a permit to operate (approval required from the health officer or the state health services department), (iii) Any establishment selling or preparing food or food products, any public or semi-public swimming pool as defined in the 2013 California Administrative Code (approval required from the health officer);
• CL2 Page 36
  The construction, alteration or modification of any structure which will result in the structure being connected to an on-site wastewater disposal system or water system; (approval required from the well and septic section of permit and resource management department),
• CL3 Page 36
  The alteration or modification of any existing structure which is connected to an on-site wastewater disposal system or water system requiring a permit, where the alteration or modification may impose additional burdens upon the existing system, such as, but not limited to, the addition of rooms or the modification of floor plans for potential additional occupancy. This section shall not apply to repairs, such as replacement of roofing or siding. Where the permit is for modification or alteration of an existing structure, no permit will be issued where, in the determination of the chief building official, such modification is likely to result in exceeding the capacity of the system;
• CL4 Page 36
  The construction, alteration or modification of any structure which may result in the property being improved in excess of its capacity to absorb sewage effluent. This section is intended to cover any change in the property which might adversely affect sewage disposal such as, but not limited to, grading or the construction of a barn or swimming pool which might infringe on the leach field (approval required from the well and septic section of permit and resource management department); c) For the purposes of this section, approval by the well and septic section of permit and resource management department shall mean either an office clearance, field clearance, or issued well and septic permit for on-site wastewater disposal system. d) Whenever approval of the on-site wastewater disposal system is required, it shall be based upon the requirements imposed by this chapter and any other state or local law or regulation which may be 34 June 2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Permit Sonoma 2025 applicable, including basin plans and other standards promulgated by the North Coast Water Quality Control Board and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. e) Building permits must be cleared as to zoning considerations in Chapters 26 or 26C, grading and drainage requirements in Chapter 11, and stormwater requirements in Chapter 11A of this Code. Building permits for projects regulated by the California Fire Code and Sonoma County fire safe standards may be subject to review and approval by appropriate fire service agencies. Where county road encroachment is necessary, a permit for same shall be first secured. A water and/or sewer clearance is first required in areas serviced by special districts and cities before building permits can be issued. f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter or the codes adopted hereby, emergency maintenance work or repair of buildings and structures requiring a permit hereunder may be commenced before obtaining a permit without violating this chapter provided the permit and resource management department or the public health officer, in the appropriate case, is notified prior to noon of the next following business day and the permit required is obtained within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter, and provided further that no work shall be covered before it has been duly inspected and approved. Compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act, the Sonoma County subdivision regulations, and the Sonoma County zoning regulations, including compliance with conditional permits issued thereunder, and compliance with all laws, is a condition precedent to the issuance of any permit required by this chapter for work to be done on any particular parcel of real property in the unincorporated area of this county. g) As a condition precedent to the issuance of a building permit required by this section for which an application was made on or after November, 1989, the applicant shall pay to the county development fee as specified in Section 26-98-660 of this Code. The permit required for Section 105 of Appendix 1 of the California Building Code for structures subject to the requirements of this subsection shall not be issued unless and until the development fee has been paid. h) Within flood-prone urban areas as defined in Section 7-13(a)(10), a building permit authorizing excavation for foundations shall not be issued until a disposal location for excavated material has been designated. Acquisition of a building permit does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility for acquiring any other state and local permits required for the activity. i) In any unincorporated portion of Sonoma County where stormwater discharges are subject to the requirements of one or more NPDES permits, as referenced in Chapter 11, any construction site for which building permits are approved pursuant to Chapter 7 must be developed and used pursuant to any applicable requirements of said NPDES permit(s). Failure to adhere to applicable NPDES permit requirements at any time will be deemed to be a violation of this section and may subject the permittee to the penalties established by this chapter. Permittees may meet this requirement by filing with the Regional Water Quality Control Board the appropriate notice of intent to comply with the state general construction activity stormwater permit or by obtaining approval of an individual NPDES permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. June 2025 35 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Local Fees, Local Subsidies Local Fees, Local Subsidies Fees and subsidies cause local pain SUMMARY Nobody likes paying government fees, especially regulatory ones like permits for home renovations. But frustration can turn to anger when these fees suddenly increase dramatically without warning or alternatives. That’s exactly what happened in the summer of 2024 when a fee for reviewing home modifications in Santa Rosa’s historic districts jumped from $1,700 to $17,000. The fee was meant to cover the cost of reviewing major renovation projects in historic areas. Although the City of Santa Rosa followed the legal process for increasing fees, the Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) which had been responsible for reviewing projects wasn’t informed of the public hearings until after the fees had already been approved. While such notification was not required by law, CHB members considered the increase excessive and likely to discourage major renovations in historic districts. Several resigned in protest. To its credit, the Santa Rosa City Council acknowledged that the historic district fee increase was not what it intended. The increase was buried in a broader fee study undertaken to adjust hundreds of fees that hadn’t changed since 2014. There was nothing to signal the unusual size of the increase or the fact that the fee had been subsidized in the past. The resulting uproar led to an eight-month review process that streamlined service delivery and simplified regulations. Despite these improvements, it left many Santa Rosa residents angry and wondering how such an outrageous increase was ever proposed. This incident prompted the Grand Jury to investigate how fees are set and controlled in Santa Rosa and other cities. By state law, a fee is a charge for a service or product provided directly to those who pay it. Unlike a tax, a fee may not exceed the actual cost of providing a specific service. The Grand Jury examined fee-setting practices in Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park, and Petaluma—the three largest cities in Sonoma County. The study reviewed the legal requirements for raising fees and explored ways local governments could prevent excessive increases from being approved without proper consideration and oversight.
• CL5 Page 57
  Most Sonoma County residents are receiving animal services that approach, achieve, or even exceed industry standards. However, this is not the case for the over 20% affected by city contracts with NBAS.
• CL6 Page 57
  The existing decentralization of animal control and shelter services and the lack of oversight by the county, the four Sonoma County cities with NBAS contracts, or by the agency’s board of directors, has allowed unacceptable performance by NBAS to persist without intervention.
• CL7 Page 57
  The NBAS proposals on which its contracts are based promise an extensive range of services for a cost that is far below the budgeted costs of either SCAS or RPAS. The result is that NBAS is inadequately funded to fulfill its responsibilities. June 2025 55 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County
• CL8 Page 58
  In recent years, as an underfunded and underperforming non-profit agency, NBAS has failed to provide animal services which are compliant with state mandates and contract provisions. The 2012 DHS report cautioned that insufficient oversight could lead to this situation.
• CL9 Page 58
  The existing fragmentation of services is inefficient and confusing for members of the public. It makes it difficult to know where to call in an emergency, or how to access needed services. Fees for licensing and services vary, as does the range and quality of information available on websites and the ability to contact a shelter or animal control officer.
• CL10 Page 58
  The lack of shared data and communication channels poses unique challenges for animal control agencies, the County Department of Health Services, and the Office of Emergency Management. It hampers compliance with legally mandated management and reporting of licensing data and the quarantine and tracking of potentially dangerous animals. It makes it more difficult for owners to locate lost pets. It can delay or disrupt response to emergency situations.
• CL11 Page 58
  Following a series of disastrous fires and floods, the County appointed the SCAS Director as animal liaison to participate in development of the Sonoma County Emergency Operations Plan. In 2018, it added an animal disaster response plan with defined procedures and established MOUs to define roles for key NGOs. NBAS is not among these partners and not all cities have developed such plans.
• CL12 Page 58
  Funding constraints and a lack of coordination among agencies leaves most municipal and non- profit shelters struggling to accomplish support functions that are essential to all such as timely license renewals and invoicing for fees, staff and volunteer training, and maintenance of websites to provide effective public outreach. Thoughtful centralization of some or all these functions could lead to improved, cost-efficient solutions, and increased revenue collection.
• CL13 Page 58
  Rabies control efforts are undermined by failure to achieve high levels of pet licensing and implement spay/neuter programs for population control. Failure to collect license and shelter service fees results in the loss of revenue to support animal services.
• CL14 Page 104
  The jury was impressed by the Fleet Division’s comprehensive approach to vehicle management.
• CL15 Page 104
  The management of other assets (non-vehicle and non-real estate property) had low dollar value and the disposal process appeared adequate.
• CL16 Page 104
  No single department is tasked or has sufficient expertise to evaluate the best use of the county’s real estate assets.
• CL17 Page 104
  The Surplus Land Act complicates the sale of government property and requires specific expertise to navigate the law.
• CL18 Page 104
  Information about the county’s most valuable assets (land and buildings) is not readily available to the public.
• CL19 Page 120
  The report’s findings may be wholly accepted, or rejected, as written.
• CL20 Page 120
  The report’s findings may be partially accepted and partially rejected, or
• CL21 Page 120
  The report’s findings require further analysis. No follow-up action (by either the Civil Grand Jury or the respondent) is required in cases where findings are accepted or rejected. When the respondent indicated that a recommendation required further analysis, however, the public is entitled to know what that analysis concluded; this report will tell you. Similarly, regarding a report’s recommendations, agencies and elected officials must respond in one of four ways:
• CL22 Page 120
  The recommendation is accepted and has already been implemented.
• CL23 Page 120
  The recommendation is rejected and no further action will be taken.
• CL24 Page 120
  The recommendation requires further analysis (which should be completed within six months of publication of the Grand Jury report).
• CL25 Page 120
  The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. State law requires the heads of government agencies and elected officials to respond within 60 days of the Civil Grand Jury’s issuance of a report with a copy to the governing board; boards, councils and agencies run by boards are allowed an additional 30 days. Of course, substantive issues may not be resolved by the time the subsequent Civil Grand Jury issues its Continuity Report. Responses stating that “further analysis is required” or that “recommendations will be implemented in the future” are a commitment to action that probably won’t be monitored or reported: this can be a convenient way for respondents to kick the can down the road (and sometimes hope it goes unnoticed). This year, the Sonoma County Grand Jury reviewed all unresolved items listed in the “Civil Grand Jury 4 Year Continuity Report” published by the 2023-2024 Civil Grand Jury. The Civil Grand Jury requested agency updates to recommendations that promised further analysis or future action to see whether these commitments had been fulfilled and/or promised actions had been taken by these agencies. The following tables show the status of findings and recommendations that were not resolved in prior years’ reports, and whether government commitments for future action were eventually met. We’re pleased to note that most government commitments were fulfilled and here the Grand Jury is equally pleased to share the list of items still outstanding. 116 June 2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 2018-2022 Continuity Follow-up Civil Grand Jury Report 2018-2019 Unfulfilled Commitments THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH BUDGET: A Perfect Storm Unresolved Recommendations and Implemented Current Status R5 DHS will continue and expedite the Community Based Organization (CBO) No contract evaluation and build performance metrics. Current Status: DHS has stated that it drafted and adopted specific budgetary policies and procedures in the summer of 2019 to address this finding. CAO staff continues to work closely with DHS Finance on budgetary matters—through the normal budget cycle and through board items. Despite this response, from 2022 to the present, DHS contract performance has been problematic, and no performance metrics are being published. Civil Grand Jury Report 2019-2020 Updated All recommendations resolved. Civil Grand Jury Report 2020-2021 Unfulfilled Commitments BROADBAND ACCESS IN SONOMA COUNTY: Broadband IS a Utility; The Quiet Crisis of Availability Unresolved Recommendations and Implemented Current Status R1 The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors consider recognizing and designating Partially, no broadband as a “Utility” that needs prioritization by October 31, 2021. further follow- up Current Status: On March 2, 2021, the BOS approved a 5-year strategic plan that recommended includes broadband deployment and access. It does not include designation of broadband service as a utility. R4, R7, R8, R9 and R10 Current Status: These recommendations depend on Partially, no broadband’s being designated as a utility. See R1. further follow- up recommended June 2025 117 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 2018-2022 Continuity Follow-up COUNTY JAIL INMATE TELEPHONE AND COMMISSARY: Overcharging a Captive Population Unresolved Recommendations and Implemented Current Status R2 By September 30, 2021, the Sheriff’s Office develop a new communications Partially, no model to provide for sufficient telephone kiosks to allow the inmate population free further follow-up telephone and video visitation for at least 90 minutes per week until such time as a recommended new communication contract is in effect. Current Status: According to the Sheriff’s Office, inmates are allowed 70 minutes of phone calls per week at a cost to them of $.07 per minute. Prior to Covid, inmates were charged $.21 per minute. There are no additional telephone kiosks in place and there are no video visits. R5 The Sheriff’s Office reevaluate its commissary markup to be in line with grocery Partially store, as opposed to convenience store, pricing, on or before September 1, 2021. complete Current Status: The commissary is now run by Summit, an outside company. More items are available to inmates, some at a lower cost, but many items are still marked up much more than grocery store prices. R6 By September 30, 2021, the Sheriff’s Office, using the reserve Inmate Welfare Partially Trust funds, resume all inmate programs in existence pre-Covid, with funding at the complete same level once Covid restrictions are lifted. Current Status: According to the Sheriff’s Office, inmate programs are being resumed. In-person classes as well as online classes are now offered. R7 The Sheriff’s Office restructure the 10-member Inmate Welfare Trust Resolved Committee by December 31, 2021, to include more diverse representation, for example, community members, financial analysts, social workers and educators to bring the Committee more in line with the requirements of Penal Code 5006 regarding commission membership standards to State Prisons. Current Status: The jail does not have to abide by the penal code for state prisons. However, according to the Sheriff’s Office there are now two civilians on the Inmate Welfare Trust Committee, including one educator. The remaining committee members are composed of Sheriff’s Office staff. 118 June 2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 2018-2022 Continuity Follow-up COVID MITIGATION AND THE COUNTY JAIL And its Unexpected Consequences Unresolved Recommendations and Implemented Current Status R1 The Sheriff’s Office develop, no later than September 1, 2021, a policy to Partially restore out of cell activity, in person and video visitation, and all programs to pre- pandemic levels. Current Status: In-person visits, and some classes and programs for inmates, have been resumed. There is little out-of-cell-activity and there are no video visits. R4 The Sheriff’s Office and the Board of Supervisors work together to develop a Resolved plan by December 31, 2021, to increase the contracted Wellpath resources to fund four additional Wellpath discharge planners for mental health and medical assignment to the Main Adult Detention Facility. Current Status: Wellpath services have increased per 2023-24 Grand Jury report responses. R6 The Sheriff’s Office implement a surveillance-testing program and require 100% N/A, Resolved participation by all unvaccinated jail staff by September 1, 2021. Current Status: The Public Health Order regarding Covid has been rescinded, so the vaccine mandate is no longer applicable. Civil Grand Jury Report 2021-2022 Updated Responses DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES: Dedication Overcame Dysfunction Unresolved Recommendations and Implemented Current Status R8 By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors will consult with the Human Partially, survey Resources Department to consider establishing an Ombudsperson for County in progress in employees to provide a neutral means to voice issues of concern. 2025 Current Status: The Human Resources Department responded that it plans to conduct an employee-engagement survey in 2024 to determine the best path forward. R13 By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator’s Partially, no Office work with the Department of Health Services executive leadership team in further follow- developing an actionable plan to address work culture issues, including retaliation, up harassment and bullying. recommended Current Status: DHS responded that it hired an equity manager in March of 2022 who was then hired away by Marin County. Recruitment is underway to fill this position. DHS developed an equity plan in December of 2022. June 2025 119 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury 2018-2022 Continuity Follow-up R14 By December 31, 2022, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Partially, no Administrator’s Office to work with the Department of Health Services’ executive further follow- leadership team to develop a clearly defined and actionable plan for internal up communication that includes greater transparency and staff participation throughout recommended the department. Current Status: DHS responded that it published an internal newsletter, DHS Connect, in the fall of 2022. Video clips of DHS employees were produced in November of 2023 and used in promotional material to recruit staff. R16 By March 1, 2023, the Board of Supervisors direct the County Administrator’s Resolved via Office and the County Human Resources Department to develop a plan for the County org Board’s review and consideration whereby the County Human Resources restructure Department has oversight authority over all satellite human resource divisions. Current Status: The Human Resources Department responded that it will work with a consultant in 2024 to develop recommendations regarding oversight of all satellite-department human resources functions. SMART DECISION-MAKING: Citizen Feedback is Critical for Success Unresolved Recommendations and Implemented Current Status R4 By January 31, 2023, the Board of Directors require written Citizen’s Oversight Partially Committee analysis and recommendations prior to all strategic decisions whether or resolved not incorporated in the five-year Strategic Plan. Current Status: The COC bylaws require the COC to issue reports, on at least an annual basis, on issues related to the Strategic Plan, but not on all strategic decisions. In summary, the tables above give an update of the recommendations of the Civil Grand Jury reports of 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 that were unanswered when the follow-up reports were published. While there are still unresolved issues, this update shows the progress made after the Civil Grand Juries’ terms expired. 120 June 2025 Back row standing, L to R: Edward Campaña, George Greeley, Mike Brady, Marc Andrade, Nancy Fowler Front row seated L to R: Cecily Wallis, Tom McMains, Karen Rocco (Foreperson), Wendy Roberts (Foreperson Pro Tem), Wynne Grossman (Not pictured: Andy Cohen, Rob Hunter, Eric Frost, Troy Rohde) June 2025 121
• CL26 Page 13
  Sonoma County Airport is a critical economic and transportation asset for Sonoma County. It has grown rapidly from a sleepy general aviation airport to serve more than 700,000 passengers a year. However, its current management structure and planning approach are not consistent with this growth, and are on a slow track to react. Current staffing and funding resources do not align with STS’s rapid growth and evolving role in Sonoma County. STS faces significant challenges in strategic planning, management continuity and capability, and facility capacity. Sonoma County Airport must address structural runway construction deficiencies. Community concerns over air traffic noise, and inadequate parking capacity are hurdles that the airport must navigate as it continues to expand. Addressing these operational and infrastructure challenges will be critical in maintaining the airport’s role as a vital gateway to Northern California, while also ensuring it remains a good neighbor to the surrounding community. The airport must also address all FAA compliance issues and further enhance the physical infrastructure to fully capitalize on its potential as a regional economic driver. During the past 5 years, Sonoma County Airport has demonstrated resilience and growth, and these efforts position the airport favorably among its national peers and contribute significantly to the region's economic vitality and connectivity, but the lack of a comprehensive forward-looking master plan is a significant concern that will likely constrain future development. Looking ahead, STS aims to continue its growth trajectory by attracting additional airline services and expanding its destination offerings. Ongoing investments in infrastructure and community engagement are central to the airport’s strategy to strengthen its role as a key transportation gateway in Northern California. However, airport management must also recognize and proactively plan for increased airline activity and expanded flight schedules if it hopes to sustain growth while maintaining satisfactory customer service.
• CL27 Page 31
  Permit Sonoma plays a significant role in Sonoma County public safety and, in answer to the two questions that the Civil Grand Jury set out to answer, Permit Sonoma is doing what it’s supposed to do: processing thousands of permit applications on a reasonably efficient basis and complying with state mandates for timely review. Although the Civil Grand Jury can’t be absolutely certain that June 2025 29 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Permit Sonoma 2025 Permit Sonoma is meeting its legal obligation to process permits as quickly as AB2234 requires, our research suggests that PS is compliant. We wish we could prove it. The fact that the case can’t be proven is a problem that must be corrected. PS’s workflow systems need work and don’t support PS management or (more importantly) permit applicants’ need for better and more automated access to individual and overall performance metrics. This absence of meaningful plan check performance data precluded inclusion of permit cost analysis in this Civil Grand Jury study. Permit Sonoma doesn’t know whether the fees it charges fairly reflect the work it does because the workflow systems don’t capture time-on-task data in ways that are necessary to complete the analysis. Capturing this data programmatically would be more efficient, and fair, than repeatedly hiring fee study consultants who imagine creative legal methods to justify fee schedules. PS has done a fine job of accepting and interpreting the Berry Dunn report recommendations and made an excellent plan to achieve these recommendations. Victory was declared prematurely, however: there is still meaningful work to be done and it would be a shame to stop short of full implementation. Permit Sonoma has completed the initial phase of its management review. Now, staff must focus on continued process improvement with particular emphasis on improving customer service and empowering additional express permitting teamwork. Factors such as lower permit volumes and smarter fulfillment of regulations will require Permit Sonoma to operate with greater efficiency and embrace new technology to do better work, faster, at lower cost in the future. Permit Sonoma management’s report to the Board of Supervisors, while generally accurate, glosses over work that still needs to be done and funded. The Civil Grand Jury concludes that PS is doing a good job of accepting and reviewing permit applications on a timely basis and has both opportunity and organizational capability to be more ambitious. A moderate additional investment in the workflow platform – and staff with the skills to improve it as needed – will produce significant gains in Permit Sonoma efficiency and an excellent return on investment for Sonoma County builders and taxpayers.
• CL28 Page 43
  California state law requires certain procedures to ensure that fees do not exceed the cost of providing a service. However, the law does not specify how often a fee study must be conducted or require escalation clauses for gradual increases. The two cities that conducted studies had last done so 8 and 10 years earlier. The law also does not require local governments to clearly state previous fees when proposing new ones. When fee increases are large and abrupt — such as when a previously subsidized fee is no longer subsidized, as happened in Santa Rosa — residents may see the new fees as excessive and punitive. By reviewing all fees with significant increases, governing bodies can better assess what level of fee increases are justified.
• CL29 Page 78
  Sonoma County has the beginnings of a solid framework for evacuations: a written Emergency Operations Plan, an active Emergency Operations Center for coordination, multi-channel public alert systems, and a robust community of residents who recognize both the need for preparedness and the value of planning for emergencies. Collaboration with voluntary agencies provides organized shelter and aid during disasters. These foundations mean the County does not have to start from scratch during a crisis. However, our analysis identifies areas needing attention. Communications stand out: evacuation orders and warnings must be localized, dynamic and include immediate instructions for specific 76 June 2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Evacuation Plans areas. The research evidence is clear that plain, specific alerts (especially mandatory orders when needed) save lives. Sonoma County emergency communications networks should be both hardened and capable of reaching everywhere in the county, whether through improvements in physical capacity or support for community organizations that can reach places with radio networks when cell service isn’t available. Infrastructure and logistics are another focus. Limitations of the existing road network means contingency planning in advance is key to public safety. Funding to reinforce key bridges, install more emergency power generators at critical communications sites (to prevent cell tower failures), or add redundancy (like more river gauges and weather sensors) would increase resilience. The most impactful and consequential fact impacting evacuations is the inadequacy of the roads required for emergency evacuations. Highway 12 in the Sonoma Valley, Westside Road between Healdsburg and the Russian River, and River Road along the Russian River are the most obvious examples of roads that are critical for emergency evacuation, yet they are single lane each way, with some area having minimal shoulders and turn-outs. Upgrading these roads will reduce the likelihood of significant traffic problems during the next emergency evacuation. Inadequate response to legal mandates for preparedness: California’s legal landscape for disaster and emergency management creates a comprehensive, multi-layered system with local authorities at its core. Statutes charge cities and counties with developing robust emergency plans, integrating wildfire and flood considerations into every facet of community planning, and continually updating those plans to reflect new risks and knowledge. The Legislature has reinforced these duties through targeted laws on evacuation planning, alerting standards, and climate resilience. California’s state-local partnership strives to ensure that whether it’s a wildfire in the hills or a flood in the valleys, local authorities are prepared to lead a swift, organized, and life-saving response. California has learned from hard experience that accountability for disaster readiness is clear: the state sets standards and provides support, but the operational responsibility lies with the local governments who know their communities best. While the framework in place provides a strong foundation to safeguard County residents from the perils of wildfires and floods, Sonoma County’s approach to date is long on physical preparedness but short on anticipation. To date, Sonoma County has fallen short of state mandates for preparation of (and communication to residents about) advance preparation of evacuation routes and traffic management systems, identification of (and advance planning for) evacuation via roads that are challenges for emergency services access, and investment in technology that would enable the Department of Emergency Management to develop the detailed analysis needed to facilitate unified command and control during the next major evacuation. Sonoma County local governments must not only respond to disasters but prepare in advance by mapping every flood zone and fire hazard and hardening infrastructure and development patterns against these threats. Readiness is not static. By sharpening communication protocols, shoring up critical infrastructure, fully utilizing analytic modeling technology and engaging citizens in preparedness, the County can move closer to being truly ready for the next major evacuation event. And one is coming.
• CL30 Page 94
  The experiences of Healdsburg and Rohnert Park demonstrate that addressing affordable housing challenges requires a synergistic combination of adaptive growth management, strategic land acquisition, streamlined entitlement processes, diverse financing mechanisms, and robust leadership, along with deep community involvement. While specific instruments and approaches may vary based on local contexts, the underlying commitment to proactive planning and collaborative engagement appears to be a crucial determinant of success in expanding affordable housing opportunities. The Grand Jury concluded that the key ingredient of this collaborative engagement is community will, which exists within Healdsburg and Rohnert Park and should be fostered throughout the county. The Grand Jury believes that cities, unincorporated municipalities and the County can learn from each other by meeting periodically, sharing experiences and identifying best practices. Rohnert Park and Healdsburg housing staff, community members and city leadership generously shared their successes and challenges with the Civil Grand Jury, and we strongly encourage the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, housing staff, city mayors, city council members, grassroots representatives, and housing advocates throughout Sonoma County to meet with and learn from each other.

Commendations 2

• CM1 Page 58
  The Grand Jury recognized the steady progress achieved by SCAS to comply with best practices, and other recommendations contained in the 2012 DHS report. This progress is acknowledged in subsequent reports to the Board of Supervisors and is, in part, due to the Board’s on-going oversight and support of improved animal services. The exceptional volunteer and financial support provided to the Rohnert Park Animal Shelter by its community is testimony to the value of well-run, conveniently located facilities. At the Humane Society of Sonoma County, we experienced an independent non-profit shelter with minimal public funding whose public engagement and service on behalf of animals extends across city and county boundaries. While our investigation did not extend to the dozens of private and non-profit programs caring for Sonoma County animals, we would be remiss not to call out the outstanding shelter and adoption services provided by Pets Lifeline and Dogwood and the exemplary work of Forgotten Felines to control populations of pet and feral cats. These non-profit organizations depend on the generosity and volunteer support of the community. Our hats are off to all those who care for the county’s companion animals. 56 June 2025 Sonoma County Civil Grand Jury Animal Services in Sonoma County
• CM2 Page 104
  The Grand Jury found that the County of Sonoma’s Fleet Operation efficiently and cost effectively disposes of the County’s rolling stock, earning the county substantial revenue each year.

Agency Responses 5

Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.

No Responses Found 2

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.